Question

A. No attendants are qualified.
B. Some nurses are qualified.
C. Some nurses are not qualified.
D. All nurses are attendants.
E. All attendants are qualified.
F. Some attendants are qualified.

• A. ABF
• B. CDF
• C. BDF
• D. BDE

Hint:

Check for contradictions or deductions between universal statements like "all", "some", or "none". Pay attention to class-subclass relationships (e.g., all nurses are attendants).

Answer 1

The Correct Option is B

Let us evaluate the logical consistency of the options: Option (a) ABF: - A: No attendants are qualified. - B: Some nurses are qualified. - F: Some attendants are qualified. There is a direct contradiction between A and F. If A says no attendants are qualified, then F saying some attendants are qualified is invalid. Hence, this option is inconsistent. Option (b) CDF: - C: Some nurses are not qualified. - D: All nurses are attendants. - F: Some attendants are qualified. Let us analyze this: - If all nurses are attendants (D), and some nurses are not qualified (C), it implies some attendants are not qualified. - But F says some attendants are qualified — this does not contradict C or D. - Therefore, all three can be true simultaneously. This option is logically consistent. Option (c) BDF: - B: Some nurses are qualified. - D: All nurses are attendants. - F: Some attendants are qualified. While these statements don’t contradict each other, they don't offer a strong logical link. There is no definitive conclusion or relationship binding all three together. So, it is weaker than option (b). Option (d) BDE: - B: Some nurses are qualified. - D: All nurses are attendants. - E: All attendants are qualified. Here, D and E together would imply that all nurses (being attendants) are qualified. But B only says "some nurses are qualified", which contradicts the derived conclusion. So this set is logically inconsistent. Final Decision: Option (b) CDF is the only set with clear logical compatibility and progression.